Last year, we saw a team trade up 4 spots to get from 6 to 2 in order to draft their franchise quarterback. The Rams received two 1st rounders (plus the #6 pick in trading down) along with an additional 2nd round pick.

It is important to keep in mind a trade like this is very strongly linked to the players in the draft. The Redskins were willing to give up a king's ransom because they were targeting RGIII. He was expected to be the franchise QB for Washington back in March.

As it stands right now, the Chiefs are in line for the #1 pick in the draft, but they play a Raiders franchise that is falling like a meteor after two consecutive 8-8 seasons. So it wouldn't be too difficult to expect a Chiefs win to get them to 3 wins. That could place Jacksonville and Oakland in the top 2.

If Jacksonville chooses to stand pat with their QB situation or Oakland would rather address a myriad of other needs rather than QB, what could these franchises get from a team like Arizona which projects to be in the top 10 but on the outside looking in when it comes to selecting the top QB prospects?

One thing to keep in mind with this draft is the strength of the draft is not at the top and the strength certainly is not in the skill positions. There is no Andrew Luck or RGIII in this draft. There is no Calvin Johnson, AJ Green or Darren McFadden. With that in mind, it may be a buyer's market--everyone looking to sell and no one looking to buy. Teams from 3-8 will be in the strongest positions as opposed to last year with two clear cut elite talents in the draft. This could diminish the value of the top 2 picks or make them untradeable assets entirely.

Well, seeing that there aren't those elite prospects at the top of the draft, I suspect teams are not going to want to trade up to no. 2 for the same reason no. 2 would want to trade down. The no. 2 spot might be cheaper, but who would you be moving up for? I think that's basically what you're saying, but I suspect we'll see less movement in the draft this year. It's not as talent-rich as the last one, and those special talents are what get teams moving their picks.

Well, seeing that there aren't those elite prospects at the top of the draft, I suspect teams are not going to want to trade up to no. 2 for the same reason no. 2 would want to trade down. The no. 2 spot might be cheaper, but who would you be moving up for? I think that's basically what you're saying, but I suspect we'll see less movement in the draft this year. It's not as talent-rich as the last one, and those special talents are what get teams moving their picks.

I think there are some special talents on the defensive side with guys like Jarvis Jones, Damontre Moore and Star Lotulelei. But the special talents at the skill positions are not there--and those are the guys teams trade up for. So I think I agree with you.

If Matt Ryan can go #3 overall when Jake Long was not seen as a once-in-a-generation talent, then these QBs can fall without any teams trading up for them.

I could see a team that covets Joeckel trading up into the top five, perhaps Cleveland might be a willing partner depending on where they end up. But I believe most of the movement will be in that 5-15 range.

If the Chiefs beat the Raiders both would have 3 wins, they'd be 1-1 against each other, and the Chiefs would have the strength of schedule, unless I'm remembering it wrong. The Chiefs would still pick ahead of the Raiders.

It's all moot anyway since there is no way the Chiefs beat the Raiders.

If the Chiefs beat the Raiders both would have 3 wins, they'd be 1-1 against each other, and the Chiefs would have the strength of schedule, unless I'm remembering it wrong. The Chiefs would still pick ahead of the Raiders.

It's all moot anyway since there is no way the Chiefs beat the Raiders.

To this point, the Raiders have had a considerably easier SOS and it should remain that way with the schedule to the end of the season. The draft tiebreakers work in reverse so whoever has the easiest SOS gets the first pick.

To this point, the Raiders have had a considerably easier SOS and it should remain that way with the schedule to the end of the season. The draft tiebreakers work in reverse so whoever has the easiest SOS gets the first pick.

Wasn't sure who had the easier SoS but I know how it works.

Like I said, it's moot anyway because the Raiders will stomp the Chiefs again.

The top two selections are as undesirable as I can remember. I don't believe we'll see much action because, simply put, there's really no elite players and the top guys at each position aren't THAT much better than their nearest competitor, outside of offensive tackle possibly.

At quarterback there is no consensus "franchise" caliber guy, and a team like Kansas City will, if I had to bet, likely try to convince themselves that one of these guys is worthy of the top pick, but there will be so many differing opinions on the quarterbacks that they won't force action for teams to want to move up.

Luke Joeckel at the offensive tackle might be the only marquee position where he's clearly above the next best guy, but I can't see a team sacrificing move picks to move up into the top 2 just to get him, and looking at the teams near the top of this draft, tackle could be addressed but a position like pass rusher can be satisfied at the top and there are some nice 2nd and 3rd round options at tackle.

Then you get to the defensive linemen and pass rushers, and while there is a good bunch to select from, will a team feel the need to move more picks to grab the guy they want over the next best option? Jarvis Jones is a threat off the edge, but he's got health concerns and is a liability against the run. Star Lotulelei is a force in the middle, but Hankins is arguably just as disruptive and good of an option. Then we arrive at players like Moore, Werner, Jordan, and Richardson, who will come off the board near or outside the top five, and teams will be more than happy to stay put somewhere in the Top 10 to draft them instead.

Ultimately, the action when it comes to trades in this draft will occur from 6-10 I feel because those teams in the teens will want the chance to nab one of the talented pass rushers, and one or two of the quarterbacks may find their way off the board as well.

Last year I kept mocking trades up for a qb at 2. I think this year it would be wise to draft the BPA. If KC wants a qb, trade up for Tyler Wilson. A 2 and a 3 this year. And, a pick next year. I'd draft Joeckel and do that if I'm KC. If you take a qb and he flops. No guarantee your pick at 33 is a real good player. You should get a real good player and a qb with potential my way.

If the Aggies all say in school; Joeckel, Moore and Matthews. They might and try to win a national championship. This goes from a poor draft to a god-awful one for Top 10 picks.

Last year I kept mocking trades up for a qb at 2. I think this year it would be wise to draft the BPA. If KC wants a qb, trade up for Tyler Wilson. A 2 and a 3 this year. And, a pick next year. I'd draft Joeckel and do that if I'm KC. If you take a qb and he flops. No guarantee your pick at 33 is a real good player. You should get a real good player and a qb with potential my way.

this times a 10000000. Get your heads out. BA is a top 5-6 LT, Joekel may be that in 2-3 years. Why set your team back further?

__________________

my scent?...like making love to a lumberjack
<TACKLE> i will ngata give you a bj raji
<+BOE> Scott, with Burfict's character concerns (whether legit or not) you think Pioli would draft him. :D
<+ScottWright> Why not. Baldwin does need a sparring partner...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermstheman83

What's with the hate on Ricky Stanzi? Those youtube clips of him with the hulk hogan theme music instantly make him better than Luck.

Why the hell should the Chiefs be all that worried about LT? They need a freaking QB. Who the hell cares who your LT is when you don't have a QB. The Chiefs need to find a QB first and worry about LT after that.

One has to wonder if the Jags or Raiders would take a QB at #1 if somehow they end up with it or would they deal out...an argument can be made either way for both teams right now.

I agree with you 100%. In the end, I don't think Reggie McKenzie in Oakland would go for a QB unless he absolutely fell in love with one during the workouts. I think the Jaguars are a little less certain but 2 QBs in the top 10 in 3 years? Yikes. Especially when this year's QB crop is nothing special at all.

I think the more likely scenario is a team like Arizona in the late top 10 that is fairly complete except for an abysmal QB situation trading up to bypass some of the mid-top 10 teams.

Why the hell should the Chiefs be all that worried about LT? They need a freaking QB. Who the hell cares who your LT is when you don't have a QB. The Chiefs need to find a QB first and worry about LT after that.

Agreed with finding a QB but OT isn't a need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robcards

Is Albert even going to be a Chief next year? Contract is expiring and why would they have drafted Stephenson unless it was to be Albert's successor?

We had non existent depth behind Albert. Signing Winston and drafting Stephenson fixed that. And I fully expect Albert to be a Chief next year.